Unsettling The Science

Anthropogenic Global Warning is one of those topics that I usually avoid, not because it is not timely or important, but because my science expertise has always been wanting, that, and I figured that those experts in the field should know better than I. But it always bothered me when I heard things like the science is already settled and those that deny AGW are anti science, discounting the need for not only further study but further scrutiny.

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”

The entire article is interesting because it talks about the science behind the modeling and how this science has been co opted for political purposes.

Not one prone to wag my finger with pronouncements of phonies, charlatans, and imposters, but it has always been clear that money can buy expertise. As any defense attorney can attest, finding a so called expert in any field willing to say anything on the witness stand, and have the pedigree and credentials to back it up is very easy depending on the money involved. So it really is not a stretch to think that oil companies can find “experts” to provide a voice for their self interests. Ditto that with universities willing to accept grant money from organizations positing a certain premise, then having the studies support said premise, astonishing.

In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory.

And this is where we are today, still gathering empirical evidence.

I’m not prepared to say that AGW is all a bunch of horse poop as I believe that it is impossible for the growing population and it’s resultant pollution to not have a material effect on the planet. But for all those global warming converts who accuse me of living in the dark ages and being anti science, can we at least admit that, aside from greenhouse gases are increasing, that the science is still ongoing, so at this point, very little is actually settled?

Who is telling you that “the science is settled” and precisely what are they referring to?

The problem with your comparison to University funding versus oil company funding: no matter where the funding comes from, the science is required to stand on it’s own. If the research is published in a reputable scientific publication, that means it’s passed a number of hurdles and is ready to be critiqued by the scientific community (and everyone else). If Evan’s can write a paper that takes down the current climate change theory, and it stacks up, then he’ll go down in history (and he’ll be much richer than every single University researcher). Same applies to everyone else.

Global Warming has become a sort of 21st century greenie/pinko religion. Like any religion, it requires more faith than proof, and like any religion, there’s nothing a fundamentalist hates more than someone who has left the faith. The people who had elevated this guy will become his strongest critics and they’ll be ready with what they see as his weaknesses. He’ll be ridiculed, and they’ll double down on anything he specifically calls out as iffy. He’s gone straight from the choir to the strip club. I hope his house is in order, because it could get really personally nasty.

Religion really is the opiate of the masses, and it’s one hell of a drug. There’s a part of the mind that responds well to faith and it builds itself up the more the person thinks about it. For people who don’t believe in a faith from world tradition, something else takes its place. AGW fills that role so well. Anything that reinforces the faith is embraced and anything that weakens it is ignored. It’s not a religion based on science, but a religion whose believers claim it is.

I’m willing to bet a large amount of money that the usual suspects will do the same old thing they always do. On this topic we have around 82 pages evidence illustrating that bringing ‘something really smart to the table’ is about the most pointless thing in the history of the world….http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/4011/

I disagree. Faith is the cornerstone of religion. Evidence is the cornerstone of science. So in that sense they are diametrically opposed.
Unless you are talking about people who just ‘believe’ in climate change irrespective of the evidence? But event then they’re not relying on ‘faith’. They’re placing a certain degree of reliance on those are the infinitely more qualfied and experienced (and recognised as such) in that field. Which isn’t the same as ‘faith’. We all do that, all the time.

Sure, some will criticise Evans. But that’s not required to illustrate how/why he is wrong in what he says. Same as anyone else, no matter what they’re saying (i.e. if they’re arguing that the current climate change theory is correct, or wrong).

I did pick a side, my side is not “The science is settled”, nor is it “All this AGW stuff is a bunch of left wing nonsense”, my side is “Keep studying, keep the dialogue going and convince me”, isn’t that a side?

I believe I prefaced the post by stating 1) I am no scientist, and 2) I have more questions then answers on this topic. But if there is only two sides, the two I mentioned above then I think both are wrong.

I did pick a side, my side is not “The science is settled”, nor is it “All this AGW stuff is a bunch of left wing nonsense”, my side is “Keep studying, keep the dialogue going and convince me”, isn’t that a side?

Gotta agree. I’m on the “Let’s do a LOT more science without the politics” side.

I’m interested in who this ‘the science is settled’ side is. I’ve never seen a scientist say anything of the sort. So if it’s not the scientists saying it, who is? Gore apparently mentioned the words in a discussion, but that’s been stripped entirely of context. And none of the science relies on Gore anyway. Even then, he can’t be a ‘side’ as he’s only one person.

As long as he was a believer and working on confirmation of AGW, everyone thought he was ok. Now that he’s skeptical of it he’s just spouting blog nonsense? Suddenly he’s not a scientist but an ignorant copycat? It was his occupation to walk the line when it came to AGW, and he’s given up his living to come out against it. If he’s skeptical of some of it, you should probably listen. He knows what he’s doing and what he’s talking about.

The problem with your comparison to University funding versus oil company funding: no matter where the funding comes from, the science is required to stand on it’s own.

AGW believers want to question the motive of private studies and believe that the Sierra Club or government-funded science stands on its own. You can’t have it both ways. When it comes to global warming studies, time and time again the data have been found tampered with. When the difference between a link and no link has to stand up to review and could be razor-thin, any manipulation of data is just not appropriate. Whether you believe it’s true or not, you just shouldn’t want your argument built on “science” like that. If 98% of active global warming scientists are in agreement (that included him recently, BTW), it just might be because it’s easier to make money saying that.

More than that, a common argument is that “we just have to do something now, even if it isn’t true, because it could be too late.” That’s not science. That’s religion.

Also found this that I thought was interesting. you seem to think that 98% of the science is settled. That congress critter mentioned several different credentialed scientists that are not now spouting the party but have left the fold, can you discredit them as well?

The main problem that I have is that, as a non scientist, I expect those so called experts to do the research (honestly) then get back to us with some verifiable conclusions. But what we have is for every expert that declares A, we have another one that not only declares B, but says that any A backer is a fraud, further muddying the waters.

CM, I am glad that you are so confident in your AGW beliefs, me? I think its more confusing now then ever.

I disagree. Faith is the cornerstone of religion. Evidence is the cornerstone of science.

Like I said, you’ve got a guy who was on that side who now says the science wasn’t there and they can’t call him an idiot fast enough. He’s been working in the field for years surrounded certainly by info that would confirm AGW and he still saw it weak enough to suddenly decide it might not be true. His verbage works with that, too. He’s a skeptic, not the politically-loaded “denier.” Denier is the language of religion, not science, and it’s a term from the left.

Unless you are talking about people who just ‘believe’ in climate change irrespective of the evidence?

If it’s built on science that has been bent and is built around a cause-effect relationship that, even if true, might even be an effect-cause relationship, it’s far from decided. Richtaylor’s stance is actually more scientific so far than either “side” of the AGW argument.

I expect those so called experts to do the research (honestly) then get back to us with some verifiable conclusions.

So do I. Equally, I expect any accusations of anything untoward to have merit, and not simply be unproven or unfounded slander. Almost without exception, the slander ends up having merit. And then the fact that a false accusation was made disappears down the memory-hole.

But what we have is for every expert that declares A, we have another one that not only declares B, but says that any A backer is a fraud, further muddying the waters.

It’s clear to me that the further away you get from the actual scientists working in the climate change field, the ‘muddier’ it appears. Up close, it doesn’t seem muddy at all. Professional scientific disagreement is a key part of the scientific process. There are long-established mechanisms and procedures in place for this to occur.

As long as he was a believer and working on confirmation of AGW, everyone thought he was ok. Now that he’s skeptical of it he’s just spouting blog nonsense?.

Who said he’s “spouting blog nonsense”? I linked to a piece which goes through his piece and carefully explains why its wrong.
But yeah, if he wants to put his money where his mouth is, he should write it up for publication. If he can back what he says up with evidence, he’ll immediately be the denier/skeptic community’s new front-man.

Suddenly he’s not a scientist but an ignorant copycat?

Where do you get this from? What he says is consistent with the science, and the scientific method, or it isn’t. It’s pretty clear, if you read it all, that in this case he’s gotten it wrong. It’s irrelevant who he is (i.e. that he’s married to Jo Nova).

It was his occupation to walk the line when it came to AGW, and he’s given up his living to come out against it. If he’s skeptical of some of it, you should probably listen.

Sure I’ll listen. And yeah, his previous roles to provide more a reason to listen carefully. However, at the end of that day, if he’s talking rubbish, then he’s talking rubbish.

Like I said, you’ve got a guy who was on that side who now says the science wasn’t there and they can’t call him an idiot fast enough. He’s been working in the field for years surrounded certainly by info that would confirm AGW and he still saw it weak enough to suddenly decide it might not be true. His verbage works with that, too.

Who “can’t call him an idiot fast enough”?
Again, what he says either stands or it falls according to the evidence.

He’s a skeptic, not the politically-loaded “denier.” Denier is the language of religion, not science, and it’s a term from the left .

Personally, I’m happy to call actual skeptics by that term. But those who aren’t actual skeptics (i.e. they’re simply following their idelological nose on the issue) certainly can accurately be called deniers. You need to know what you’re talking about to be a skeptic.
But I’m not here calling any individual either of those.

Nobody will fund research in that area who doesn’t have an expected result, and they get what they pay for.

That’s a big call. Do you have any evidence to support that? It calls into (serious) question the whole concept of professionalism. Which is the point at which I start to get very skeptical about the skepticism….

No, he didn’t do a study, he was just skeptical (as a qualified peer) of the studies he was seeing. As you might’ve guessed, this put him in the news quickly. He doesn’t have to have done a study of his own right now, he changed his opinion based on what he saw as weaknesses in what others were saying. It’s dangerous to build policy on flawed “research,” and he didn’t want part of that. He might not be skeptical forever, he is just saying that the evidence doesn’t support it right now.

Who said he’s “spouting blog nonsense”?

You quoted that. “every piece of nonsense from every thread on every blog, all combined into one”. (sic) Perhaps the arguments have come up before because it’s a conclusion that a person could reach by reading the research. Hmmm.

He knows what he’s doing and what he’s talking about

Would you have said that before he ‘switched sides’?

Not necessarily, but when someone has the best evidence of one side in front of them for years and suddenly turns the other way, I do think that what they’re saying is worth a look. That includes people who were conservative and turn the other way. I don’t read only stuff that I agree with. That said, I’ve not been in a position to see what he’s seen, and I have not been personally picking at climate researchers because the public AGW advocates are more like religious figureheads than scientists.

Practically every link that you’ve posted in this thread has come from websites that are all about politics of this issue, not science. You’re not defending a scientific view but a faith, and you’re getting your quotes from the fundamentalists of the faith. “Skeptical Science” is neither. “Keeping an eye on the Deniers” sounds even worse. Like many “fundies,” they aren’t particularly up on the subject, they’re just shouting loudly for their side. That sounds more like a cult (somewhat on both sides) than science. Don’t pretend like AGW advocates are educated while skeptics or even deniers aren’t. They’re people arguing their religion, not science. Richtaylor wrote the original post from a neutral and basically scientific view (lacking conclusive proof on either side, I’ll say nothing for now and take my hits for it). I’d call myself strongly skeptical of AGW simply because I’ve seen too many ulterior motives in too many of the people on the AGW side when it comes to personal freedoms. Strong government AGW “policy” isn’t a libertarian policy. Were there overwhelming evidence, I would feel differently. There isn’t overwhelming evidence, and it’s far more important right now to not bring tyranny to any individual than it is to “stop global warming.:

No, he didn’t do a study, he was just skeptical (as a qualified peer) of the studies he was seeing.

I’m not suggesting that he needs to do a study. Based on what he says, he already has all the evidence. He just needs to document it all and submit it for publication.

I’m a little skeptical that he is a ‘qualified peer’ of the studies relevant to what he is saying. He has never published on climate science before. From 1999 to 2006 he worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol.

But if he an support all he claims, then his background (and/orfunding, and/or association, and/or the fact that this is a speech he gave at an Anti-Carbon-Protest) is all irrelevant.

You quoted that. “every piece of nonsense from every thread on every blog, all combined into one”. (sic) Perhaps the arguments have come up before because it’s a conclusion that a person could reach by reading the research. Hmmm.

That was my opinion after reading, and then I noticed that someone had commented in the same way. Anyway, the critique is set out in detail, and seems to accurately reflect the science. This is the point where someone (you?) can break that down and show why/how it’s inaccurate and/or misleading.

Not necessarily, but when someone has the best evidence of one side in front of them for years and suddenly turns the other way, I do think that what they’re saying is worth a look.

The ‘best evidence’ is available to everyone. Including people more qualified and experienced than David Evans, who actively work in the field of climate science. That’s the beauty of the system – it’s not a closed shop. It’s all based on published research.

That said, I’ve not been in a position to see what he’s seen, and I have not been personally picking at climate researchers because the public AGW advocates are more like religious figureheads than scientists.

Again I’m a little confused about this privleged position – has he been privvy to research that has been hidden? How did he do that? And why didn’t he turn whistle-blower at the time if he was so concerned?

Ignore the figureheads. Actually, ignore the personalities (on both sides) completely. That’s all a distraction. Ignore ‘belief’, and look at only the ‘evidence’.

Practically every link that you’ve posted in this thread has come from websites that are all about politics of this issue, not science.

Such as?
Skeptical Science considers each skeptical claim, and provides the science to demonstrate and explain why the claim doesn’t stack up. There are links to the published studies. Sure, some of the comments below each piece can get into the area of politic. But just ignore them.
Alternatively, if a piece written doesn’t accurately reflect the science, then that is something that can be picked up and explored.

You’re not defending a scientific view but a faith, and you’re getting your quotes from the fundamentalists of the faith. “Skeptical Science” is neither. “Keeping an eye on the Deniers” sounds even worse.

How would one go about defending a scientific view then (if it’s not by providing scientific explanations as to why an opinion piece is scientifically inaccurate)?

Like many “fundies,” they aren’t particularly up on the subject, they’re just shouting loudly for their side.

Here we go then. If you can see where in that critique they’ve inaccurately portrayed the relevant science (because they’re not “up on the subject”) then here is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate. Then we could perhaps take it to the website an ask them to explain.

That sounds more like a cult (somewhat on both sides) than science.

What sounds like a cult? How so? Since when do cults base themselves on published scientific research?

Don’t pretend like AGW advocates are educated while skeptics or even deniers aren’t.

I’m not doing any such thing. I didn’t say or imply that Evans is uneducated. He’s highly educated. However I’m sure you will agree that being highly educated doesn’t give someone the ability to turn something inaccurate into something accurate.

They’re people arguing their religion, not science.

Who are? Who are these mystery people you keep mentioning?

Richtaylor wrote the original post from a neutral and basically scientific view (lacking conclusive proof on either side, I’ll say nothing for now and take my hits for it).

I don’t agree. It’s not ‘neutral’ or ‘basically scientific’ to include this piece when forming a view on the science and the ‘science is settled’ argument. People should only form their views on accurate information. EDIT: I’ve reworded what I wrote. Just to clarify, this isn’t intended to be a ‘shot’ at Rich. Personally, I’m pleased he put it up as a discussion topic.

I’d call myself strongly skeptical of AGW simply because I’ve seen too many ulterior motives in too many of the people on the AGW side when it comes to personal freedoms.

You’ve seen this personally? Can you elaborate? What do personal freedoms have to do with the science? Or are you talking about non-scientists? If so, why are you considering their opinions ahead of those of scientists?

Strong government AGW “policy” isn’t a libertarian policy. Were there overwhelming evidence, I would feel differently. There isn’t overwhelming evidence, and it’s far more important right now to not bring tyranny to any individual than it is to “stop global warming.:

I can agree 100% with your premise there. Personally, from what I can tell, the evidence looks overwhelming. So I think we need to factor it into the market. Costs should be borne by those who generate them. And cost/benefit analyses should continue to be carried out and constantly updated. Those that have been carried out so far show that it’ll be far less cost and hassle to make changes now. But those are public policy decisions, which need to be informed first and foremost by the science.

WTF is a Climate Change specialist anyway? Most of the supposed “scientists” that tell you this stuff is settled aren’t experts in anything close to science, and practically all are beholden to the political movement that thinks we should limit energy generation – unless it’s oodles of money, spent on marginal technologies that aren’t going to efficiently and at a reasonable cost produce anything but a small percentage of the power we need to keep the modern world modern, like unicorn farts, wind, and solar – and often have no scientific background whatsoever. The fact is that climate changes. It has done so forever, drastically. There is no optimum temperature. More importantly, we have people making up predictions of what the past was like, based on measurements that aren’t just inaccurate, but often cherry picked, destroying the underlying data, creating rigged models that always produce the same result no matter what the input, are secretive and not just dismissive of anyone with contrary ideas, but downright hostile to them, then telling us that’s not bad science at all and doesn’t affect anything they have said on the subject, when their unscientific behaviors are exposed.

I am with the crowd that this field is all about politics and very little science, and that’s because as an engineer I see that it is one particular ideology’s politics – looking for a very specific outcome – that is driving this charade. If the Climategate scandal had resulted in them tossing out everything and demanding we start from scratch, do it all in the open, and that science and not politics drive the argument, I would today be a proponent of AGW research. Instead we got a whitewash that basically told us that near criminal unscientific behavior shouldn’t affect the conclusion, and that we need to move ahead with the whole freak show. The clock is ticking and Gaia can only be served by a world government that redistributes wealth and controls energy. That’s neither good science nor scientific: it’s horror science fiction.

An apt description, but no such luck. I’ll leave him alone to continue reading info from his church. If you read my first post (before any of the conversation happened), he confirmed it by using almost every tactic I described. I’m not 100% sure he’s not trolling.

I think we need to look beyond science to understand what makes AGW so controversial, because the science on the matter really isn’t. AGW is pretty much as sound a theory as Evolution is, so what is it then?

The answer, IMO, is politics, from both sides. The right fear many of the proposed solutions. The deem them collectivist and socialist, and we begin to see conspiracy talk like “AGW is a movement aiming for world governance”. This fear ultimately leads to science denial. In turn, some on the left uses the tune of AGW to promote their agenda.

Science needs to distance itself from politics. Or more importantly, people need to stop connecting the two (science in itself have little room for politics). Treat the matters separately. Is AGW happening? OK, so a large bulk of science points towards that. Now, let politics begin. What kind of solutions are acceptable?

EDIT: I’ve reworded what I wrote. Just to clarify, this isn’t intended to be a ‘shot’ at Rich. Personally, I’m pleased he put it up as a discussion topic.

No worries. Even if you left it as is.

One of the jobs as an author on a blog is to present topical subjects (even those subjects where he is not well versed) so that the more educated/more qualified members of that community can then pick up the ball and run with it, this benefits everyone. On this topic, I clearly stay in the shallow end of the pool.

Although I have no doubt that man’s impact on the planet is effecting it in negative ways, it is the dual question of 1)to what extend and what can we rationally do to alleviate our damage? and 2) Since the planet has been around for a while and has experienced a number of GW shifts in the past (all the while coming back or healing itself), do we really need to interfere at all?

InsipiD claimed that the belief in AGW at times appears more religion then science. Considering how Islam treats those apostates that leave the fold and what the AGW community has tried to do to David Evans, they sure do look similar, sans the fatwahs of course.

CM, if its not too personal, I would be interested to know what you do as an avocation and is it in this field?

Here’s how I try to treat the AGW debate. I read what a sceptic writes, after which I try that against my sense of logic and my shallow current knowledge. If it holds water I try to see if science have countered the specific claim.

Most often, it has. Sometimes there are counters, and counter counters (which is great). I’m not a scientist, but following this allows even me to evaluate a scientific debate.

I believe AGW is real. I also believe that science, in general, overwhelmingly backs this belief. Sometimes science produces data which does not fully compute with AGW, but the great thing about science is that the community actually embraces those moments. Even the IPCC, which so many people on the denier side of the debate have so little regard for, have published such data.

By large, temperature records, be it from core samples or from other sources, are there for anyone to study.

But I don’t think it is as sound a theory as evolution. The thing with evolution is that we can look at it happening in a rough timeline thanks to the fossil record. It’s also sort of a general theory, where even with gaps in it the general idea still holds. The problem with using timelines to try to judge AGW is that not only is the timeline still constantly shifting the more we find out, but that unlike evolution, the timeline changing could radically change the theory or completely invalidate it, as depending on what the data’s saying right now, humans started measurably affecting the Earth’s climate back when there were probably still only a couple hundred thousand of us and we managed to build a few particularly large bonfires.

I agree with much of your comment re: needing to divorce it from politics, but I disagree with the AGW crowd’s tendency to want to compare it with evolution, as I think it’s another subtle (and perhaps unintentional, giving you the benefit of the doubt) attempt to paint the other side as being made up entirely of “science denial”.

The other problem with the way you’ve framed “science needs to distance itself from politics” is that you go on to mention how a large bulk of science points towards AGW being a reality, without remembering to acknowledge that politics and this particular science mingling didn’t just start yesterday. It’s been going on for a long time, and much of that science that points towards AGW is inexorably intertwined with politics. This does not necessarily make it invalid on its own, but it does bear noting and reviewing, which can’t happen when the only accepted “review” seems to be “complete agreement”. You can’t go at it from a view of “Okay, so maybe politics and science have been too close for awhile. So let’s stop that. Now, all the science that we did while it was close with politics says this, so we’d better bring politics back into play.” That’s a divorce that lasts less time than a Britney Spears marriage.

I think we need to look beyond science to understand what makes AGW so controversial, because the science on the matter really isn’t. AGW is pretty much as sound a theory as Evolution is, so what is it then?

Are you trying to undermine the theory of Evolutions or something Kimpost? Seriously, AGW isn’t science. When water vapor comprises over 97% of our planet’s greenhouse gasses, ignore the fact that the density of said water vapor is directly related to the temperature of the oceans, which itself is regulated by solar activity, and focused on CO2, because it is practically always a byproduct of energy generation, and lay the blame for heat retention on it. Even worse, they then determined that even though nature produces far more of the stuff, that man’s part was what really drove it all over the cliff. That’s like me walking up to an accident where first a truck and then a car ran over someone, but then blaming the fly that landed on the body after wards, for the victim’s crushing death. It’s monumentally stupid.

Even more telling is the insane solution they push. global Until recently when they were called upon it to the point it became glaringly obvious, real viable engineering solutions – like the use of nuclear power for example – weren’t even part of the equation. It was always massive taxes and bigger regulation. Call me crazy, but my engineering backgrounds makes it impossible for me to figure out how a one world government and massive wealth redistribution – with the elite doing so getting stinking rich – is going to solve any porblems. It is not a coincidence that socialists are the firmest proponents of the church of AGW and love the final solution it wants.

I’m willing to bet a large amount of money that the usual suspects will do the same old thing they always do. On this topic we have around 82 pages evidence illustrating that bringing ‘something really smart to the table’ is about the most pointless thing in the history of the world….http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/4011/

Water vapor is a green house gas (and yes, the science community also knows that), but it’s part of a natural cycle. Humans do very little to put extra water vapor into the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand…

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “a constantly shifting timeline”? Are you talking historical data or computer modelled projections? Either way I don’t follow. Temperature data, historical and present, is what it is. CO2 levels are what they are now, and were what they were then. The data is the same, regardless of how you measure it. ALL data is not equally reliable, but the overall picture paints the same picture. CO2 levels are rising because of human actions, and temperatures are rising because of it.

Having said that, I don’t think that all on the other side are deniers. Since most people are not scientist, most people just don’t know. Some of those know-nots are sceptics due to politics, others are genuine, but the latter are few and far between.

The science of AGW is not intertwined with politics. The data is not political, and it is available for all in the scientific community. Most of it is available for anyone, including us.

The 97% comes from Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. That percentage relates to agreeement (on the fundementals) between climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.

The 98% comes from Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010. That percentage relates to agreeement (on the fundementals) between climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

and practically all are beholden to the political movement that thinks we should limit energy generation – unless it’s oodles of money, spent on marginal technologies that aren’t going to efficiently and at a reasonable cost produce anything but a small percentage of the power we need to keep the modern world modern, like unicorn farts, wind, and solar – and often have no scientific background whatsoever.

Again, in terms of their background, it’s the exact opposite. As for their political beliefs, or their policy response opinions – do you have any evidence to support the narrative that they’re all corrupt professionals? Because it’s so far-fetched that you’d need a lot. Certainly a lot more than none at all.

The fact is that climate changes. It has done so forever, drastically. There is no optimum temperature.

Who is claiming that climate never changed before? It’s precisely because it’s changed before that we know we’ve got some potentially serious problems.
Who is claiming an optimum temperature? Unless you’re referring to attempts to keep as much of the planet habitable as possible? In which, why would you not want that?

More importantly, we have people making up predictions of what the past was like, based on measurements that aren’t just inaccurate, but often cherry picked, destroying the underlying data, creating rigged models that always produce the same result no matter what the input, are secretive and not just dismissive of anyone with contrary ideas, but downright hostile to them, then telling us that’s not bad science at all and doesn’t affect anything they have said on the subject, when their unscientific behaviors are exposed.

Where is the evidence of any of this? The worst that can be said is that some scientists got pissed off with being bombarded with nuisance requests, and did the wrong thing in response. The rest is just part of the blog-science narrative, which is insupported by evidence.

I am with the crowd that this field is all about politics and very little science, and that’s because as an engineer I see that it is one particular ideology’s politics – looking for a very specific outcome – that is driving this charade.

I’m with the crowd that follows the evidence, no matter where it leads. That applies to the science, but also the conspiracy theories/ accusations. I do not understand how people can apply different standards of cynicism and skepticism to both.

If the Climategate scandal had resulted in them tossing out everything and demanding we start from scratch, do it all in the open,

What scandal? Climategate was a lot of hot air.
Almost all of it has been done “out in the open”. But sure, there’s always room for improvement.

and that science and not politics drive the argument, I would today be a proponent of AGW research.

Based on your narrative, I find that difficult to believe.

Instead we got a whitewash that basically told us that near criminal unscientific behavior shouldn’t affect the conclusion, and that we need to move ahead with the whole freak show.

Why was it a whitewash? Which behaviour was “near criminal”?

The clock is ticking and Gaia can only be served by a world government that redistributes wealth and controls energy. That’s neither good science nor scientific: it’s horror science fiction.

You’re confusing science with public policy. Just because you do it, doesn’t mean everyone else does.

Who is they? The scientists? In the research within the above links, which solutions are they pushing for?

Until recently when they were called upon it to the point it became glaringly obvious, real viable engineering solutions – like the use of nuclear power for example – weren’t even part of the equation. It was always massive taxes and bigger regulation. Call me crazy, but my engineering backgrounds makes it impossible for me to figure out how a one world government and massive wealth redistribution – with the elite doing so getting stinking rich – is going to solve any porblems. It is not a coincidence that socialists are the firmest proponents of the church of AGW and love the final solution it wants.

Again, you seem to be conflating science with public policy. If you actually wanted to be objective on this subject, you’d be able to separate them out. You can also ignore whether this is a ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ issue/problem. If you can accept what the science is telling us, then you (and people like you) would be able to join in the discussion about public policy. But unfortunately you’re still stuck back the beginning, kicking and screaming about massive conspiracies and fraud. It’s actually a real shame, but the public policy discussions and decisions should involve all sides of the politicial spectrum.

I get it. You think I’m being an arse. Problem is I’m not. I genuinely didn’t understand that part of your argument.

As for the political side of the argument, I also understand that you think that politics is driving some (or a lot?) of the science. I wouldn’t agree, but even if it was, the science is public. All of importance is peer reviewed. So it’s quite easy to pick apart for a sceptic, since they can check the data themselves.

What I meant by keeping politics and science separated, was that the political side and the science side of AGW should be kept apart. Is AGW happening? – Science. What should be done about it? – Politics.

A conservative could very well believe that AGW is happening, but still object to many offered solutions. And he could also suggest some of his own (like suggesting more nuclear plants).

No, actually, I don’t, I think you have your view and I actually understand it, even though I think it’s wrong (and, for that matter, wrong-headed). I just don’t want to dig a trench and get involved in staunchly opposed positions for one of this blog’s infamous AGW debates. I just don’t think it will accomplish anything other than frustrating everyone. I was more mourning that it was a bad idea to weigh in in the first place.

Cool. I kinda assumed you might be ok with it, given how reasonable and normal you seem.

One of the jobs as an author on a blog is to present topical subjects (even those subjects where he is not well versed) so that the more educated/more qualified members of that community can then pick up the ball and run with it, this benefits everyone. On this topic, I clearly stay in the shallow end of the pool.

Yep, all makes perfect sense.

Although I have no doubt that man’s impact on the planet is effecting it in negative ways, it is the dual question of 1)to what extend and what can we rationally do to alleviate our damage? and 2) Since the planet has been around for a while and has experienced a number of GW shifts in the past (all the while coming back or healing itself), do we really need to interfere at all?

I think your first question is heavily dependent on the science. The science is pretty bleak, but I think the general thinking in the science community is that we still have some time to keep most of the liveable places liveable. They’ll be different, and there will still be a lot of but we could still adapt. As for the second question, well we weren’t around for those large shifts, so they didn’t matter to us (they do tell us a lot though, and none of it is any good). If it takes a thousand+ years to ‘heal itself’ that will be way longer than we have. I don’t think the scientists have any doubt that it will ‘heal itself’. If we all disappear then no doubt that will happen relatively quickly (a thousand years or so).

InsipiD claimed that the belief in AGW at times appears more religion then science. Considering how Islam treats those apostates that leave the fold and what the AGW community has tried to do to David Evans, they sure do look similar, sans the fatwahs of course.

Nobody seems to have addressed by issue with InsipiD’s contention – science is about evidence, while religion is about belief. He’s got it backwards. It takes significant faith to believe that the scientists are all corrupt or incompetent and that the largest fraud in the history of mankind is being perpetuated. On the other hand, following the science (which is based on evidence and physics) doesn’t require faith or belief.
How has Evans been treated by the scientific community? I haven’t seen the evidence.
How would a highly respected civil engineer be treated by his colleagues if he decided to become a 9/11 Truther?

CM, if its not too personal, I would be interested to know what you do as an avocation and is it in this field?

No, I have no science training at all. I’m a town planner. Although (and before anyone starrs up!) I don’t work for government, I work for a small private consultancy. We bascially battle against government red-tape to get developments approved for clients. Last year I went into battle for an oil company against 50 screaming villagers. However, like scientists, my vocation is considered to be ‘professional’. As such, local governments use me to assess development proposals on their behalf as well. They only do that because they trust my professionalism.
My interest in climate change is entirely personal. I felt obliged to look into it because claims were being made that it was serious. (You’ll laugh, but it was Gore’s film which sparked my initial interest). The more I looked into it, the more interested I got, and the more I realised that it IS legitimate and it IS serious. However I would also hate to be taken for a ride, so I’m always interested in the skeptic/denier side as well. My need to be completely professional in my work makes me inherently interested in accusations of people being unprofessional. Professionals rely on reputations. It can take years and years to hard work to build them up So when people throw out lazy and unfrounded accusations of unprossionalism, I think it’s important to call the accusers to account. They need to put up or shut up.

Here’s how I try to treat the AGW debate. I read what a sceptic writes, after which I try that against my sense of logic and my shallow current knowledge. If it holds water I try to see if science have countered the specific claim.

Well said Kimpost. That’s how I approach AGW as well.

Most often, it has. Sometimes there are counters, and counter counters (which is great). I’m not a scientist, but following this allows even me to evaluate a scientific debate.

Precisely. It’s awesome.

I believe AGW is real. I also believe that science, in general, overwhelmingly backs this belief. Sometimes science produces data which does not fully compute with AGW, but the great thing about science is that the community actually embraces those moments. Even the IPCC, which so many people on the denier side of the debate have so little regard for, have published such data.

Exactly.

By large, temperature records, be it from core samples or from other sources, are there for anyone to study.

Many people don’t seem to realise the multiple lines of evidence that exist. Or that (as a result) AGW theory isn’t some house of cards, whereby destroying one pillar brings down the whole thing.

Water vapor is a green house gas (and yes, the science community also knows that), but it’s part of a natural cycle.

And CO2 is not? Heh, OK, yeah sure. The “scientific community” that is pushing AGW, and I put that in quotes because I do not believe these people care much about science at all, sure as hell is ignoring both water vapor and the sun because they would never be able to convince anyone they could address either of those issues. But blaming CO2 and man? Shit, there be some serious money to be made and lots of leftist ideas people would otherwise dismiss out of hand to force on humanity through fear.

Humans do very little to put extra water vapor into the atmosphere.

Exactly why they chose to ignore it completely when it is the proverbial elephant in the china shop. I guarantee you that if they could find a way to sell it they would have. CO2 was just easier to connect to human activity, even though it accounts for but a fraction of the greenhouse gasses and greenhouse effect.

CO2 on the other hand…

Really? Compared to nature? You aren’t giving Gaia her props man. She is gonna get pissed. One volcanic eruption can put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as many decades of human activity, and volcanic eruptions are common. Ever heard of forest fires? Shit, CO2 was chosen because they could blame people. No other reason. Even if I pretended this dumb assertion was right when it is not, adding quite a lot of something that isn’t even a fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gas mixture or responsible for the heat trapping effect, unless that something is orders of magnitudes larger (in the tens of thousands) than the main contributor – in this case either water vapor or nature’s addition of CO2 – is, it isn’t going to produce anything but noise. And that’s why I know the whole CO2 thing is a scam.

Again, you seem to be conflating science with public policy. If you actually wanted to be objective on this subject, you’d be able to separate them out.

WTF? My point is that there isn’t any real scinece here at all because the “settled science” is tailored to suit a political conclusion, and your argument is to tell me I am not allowed to use that argument to make my point? Damn CM, you must think everyone was brainwashed by the stupid.

Not meaning to disrespect you or anything here, but your arguments have absolutely nothing to do with science. Water vapor is a green house gas, yes, but it’s mainly a reactant. As in: something else needs to trigger the release of water vapor into the atmosphere. As a reactant it’s a major contributor. In fact more so even than CO2, but again – it’s a reactant. The driver is carbon dioxide.

And CO2 is not? Heh, OK, yeah sure. The “scientific community” that is pushing AGW, and I put that in quotes because I do not believe these people care much about science at all, sure as hell is ignoring both water vapor and the sun because they would never be able to convince anyone they could address either of those issues.

That’s just absurd. Water vapor isn’t ignored. The sun isn’t ignored. Their impact are included in every climate model you’ll find. Milankovitch cycles and sun spots are well understood and accounted for.

Really? Compared to nature? You aren’t giving Gaia her props man. She is gonna get pissed. One volcanic eruption can put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as many decades of human activity, and volcanic eruptions are common.

I have evidence, that, if science ever declared all their collected evidence as the de facto Proof of Evolution, Xtian governments everywhere would most certainly cut their funding. Thats a fact, not a belief.

I’d like to know how it all started. Surely sciencists must by now be able to replicate the beginning of life in a Petri dish, using only the materials available billions of years ago, and simulating weather conditions much less harsh than today’s AGW. Lightning strikes some stuff and it starts jiggling, then splits up and meets some other stuff, and somehow multiplies?

I’d like to see evidence that proves climate change is bad for everyone and everything, and its mankind’s duty to be the boss and stop all and any changes in climate, or evolution, for that matter, from today on.

Has the ever-brilliant, thus unbiased, clear-thinking scientific community ever considered that making humans live longer doesn’t make them live “better”? That any catastrophe, natural or man-made (or, in many cases now combined) can and will become “worse”? The math involved in this is pretty darn simple I – uh, well – believe.

Alex I provided two links which provide the science (with links to the peer-reviewed and published research) for the two issues you have raised. Can you please explain how/why the information provided at those links is wrong?

How you think you can argue science without actually using any science is just bizarre.

Anyway, let the skeptics (sure, we know who they are, where they live, and what religion they cotton to – all 100% statistically and non-politically analyzed, mind you) ignore the science. Euros and the rest of the thinkers out there know better, so whats been keeping them from lowering CO2? Can’t be all that hard for thinkers to come up with green solutions to all and any CO2-producing gizmo?

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”

Last week, he damned the industry with faint praise at a NYC conference, calling wind and solar energy “cute,” but hardly the solution to our problems. Says the original Mr. Softy, it doesn’t matter how efficient wind and solar technology become. Neither tech possesses the necessary oomph to “deal with our climate problem … because the climate problem requires more than 90% reduction of CO2 emitted, and no amount of efficiency improvement is enough.” For every one step forward developed nations make in becoming more energy efficient, the billions of energy consumers coming on-line in the developing world will take the globe two steps back — and they’ll use dirtier fuels to do it.

Last year, Gates joined other investors in providing a $35 million cash infusion to TerraPower, a start-up that has designed a nuclear reactor capable of running 50 years without refueling. That’s assuming the absence of any 9.0 earthquake-cum-tsunami scenarios, I presume. But even admitting the risks, nuclear’s advantages seem to outweigh them. Consider that, over in France, nuclear power suffices to provide 80% of that country’s electricity. Compare that to “green” boosters here in the U.S., who optimistically argue we might satisfy 10% of our electricity demand with wind … and geothermal and biofuels combined, and I think you’ll see what Gates is driving at.

Fukushima Daiichi notwithstanding, nuclear’s still the answer.

Bullshit.
Whats the buzz from the bistros and beer halls from Europe to New Zealand – bicycles, recyclable batteries, windmills. Americans need to take public transportation to and from work. ban McDonalds, impeach Bushitler Then the rest of the world can follow suit

On-topic, Bill Gates is no expert, say experts He seems to think climate change is indeed occuring but simply because there are far too many people on Earth, and they all want energy like everyone else, and they want it now. Or else.

I ask again, whats taking the enlightened so long to install their virtually free and easy green solar panels everywhere? Its super-simple technology, and its been around for decades now?

“CM: Many people don’t seem to realise the multiple lines of evidence that exist. Or that (as a result) AGW theory isn’t some house of cards, whereby destroying one pillar brings down the whole thing”.

A forerunner in green politics Olof Palme was aware of the dangerous effects of fossil fuels and believed in using nuclear power as a form of alternative energy, at least for a transition period.[19] His intervention in Sweden’s 1980 referendum on the future of nuclear power is often pinpointed by opponents of nuclear power as saving it. As of 2011, nuclear power remains one of the most important sources of energy in Sweden, much attributed to Palme’s actions.

Where do I “moan” about your posting the same dim, rote, global chant? I’m just imitating you. Stop moaning – imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and its all you garnered at Moorewatch. But enough about you.

Palme said nuclear was necessary. Makes him a loser, according to thinkers.

“CM: Many people don’t seem to realise the multiple lines of evidence that exist. Or that (as a result) AGW theory isn’t some house of cards, whereby destroying one pillar brings down the whole thing”.

Titled: “Evans doesn’t even know what the hot spot is”
Okay, sure, one or two pillars, and stuff, but Evans’ not knowing what a “hot spot” is proves virtually everything Evans ever says or does said is pure denier hokum.

Its already far too late to save the planet, and global warming has so little do to with it.

“Die Menge macht, ob etwas Gift!” said Theophrast Bombast von Hohenheim, aka “Paracelsus”“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

Paracelsus pioneered the use of chemicals and minerals in medicine. His wanderings as an itinerant physician and sometime journeyman miner took him through Germany, France, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Russia.

So he simply has to be right, right?

Its not only CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 made in USA USA USA USA USA thats evil- humans are poisonous to earth. Your cranking U2 at the CO2-emitting cookout in New Zealand are both poisonous as this is perped daily a million times over by zillions of U2 fans everywhere.

Sorry CM, but you don’t get to make up your own facts and reality on this. This isn’t a conspiracy: it is a travesty. Those emails were beyond damning, and proved that the whole house of cards was bullshit.

No need to make anything up. I’m sorry but there was nothing damning. At worst, a few people didn’t act on information requests. Bad behaviour there for sure. Although they were being bombarded as part of an orchestrated campaign, so although it still wasn’t acceptable, it was at least somewhat understandable.

And I’m sorry but if you don’t believe that the world’s largest and most detailed conspiracy wouldn’t be required to get to where we are with the science, then you don’t understand the concept of a conspiracy. It would also require the largest amount of fraud the world has ever seen, involving the most amount of people.

The degree of conspiracy and fraud required is simply implausible. And given the degree required, emails from some of the main players involved would be simply riddled with explicit evidence of that.
From rigged data that was conveniently lost,

No data was ‘rigged’ and no data was ‘conveniently lost’. If you think those accusations not only had merit but were proven, please provide the evidence/proof.

to statistical slight of hands

There were no statistical manipulations to the science. If you believe statistics were fiddled with which resulted in fraudulent science, please provide the evidence/proof.

and outright cherry picking to produce the desired base data,

Please provide the evidence.

and lets not leave out the rigged models that produce the same outcome no matter what the input,

Please provide the evidence.
The hockey-stick shape has been replicated numerous times by other scientists, using different data and different methods.

or the bias that prevented anyone with a contrary opinion from getting any kind of a fair shake by the rigged “peer review” system,

Nonsense. Please provide the evidence. Contrary research findings were included within the IPCC assessment.

the emails proved that this wasn’t science.

Actually they proved that there was no fraud or conspiracy at play. And that scientists are, shock, horror, normal people. But there was nothing of consequence to the quality of the science.

BTW, I find it quit telling that people are demanding Sarah Palin’s emails for review through FOIA, and getting them, while we are still waiting for those from people like Mann, which obviously committed fraud-science.

You’re waiting on emails from Mann? Why? You already have plenty. On what basis are you waiting on more?

That’s an extremely damning accusation to make about a professional. What proof do you have that Mann committed obvious fraud?

This from this blogs idiot Luddite.

I’m a Luddite now? How so?

I understand science & the scientific process quite well, and guarantee you I can run circles around idiots like you. In fact I have done it quite often.

You’re always full of claims and no substance, so I’d have to take your word for it. As mentioned (and commented on by Kimpost) you’ve only demonstrated a lack of understanding on this forum.

If you believe you’ve shown a good understanding, then please point to where this occurred?

The “climate change” bullshit isn’t a concept, unless you think made up shit is also a concept, it’s a purely ideological and neo-religious movement.

Um no, it’s a very well developed theory, developed and improved on for over a century, supported by an astonishing number of overlapping lines of evidence, and accepted by 97% of those actively working in the science. And pretty much every relevant scientific organization in the world. Sure there are some uncertainties, but not about the fundamentals. The uncertainties are now about the extent of trouble we’re in.

Here is a fucking clue for you: the fundamental and underlying data these losers use for their claims and predictions is fake. Everything that follows is junk.

Thanks for the clue. I’d rather have your evidence and proof though, if that’s not too much trouble.
Where is your proof that the fundamental and underlying data is fake?

If these cultists had any respects for science everything they were doing would be public knowledge and property.

Almost all of it is (and there are reasons, such as a lack of ownership of private data for example, why there were issues over handing over datasets). The research is all published. Is there any other scientific field in the history of man that provides as much information to non-scientists? No.

That’s how real science works: you allow any and all comers to reproduce your experiments, and draw their own conclusions, and if your experiment actually bore any basis on reality, the results would be identical and reproducible. Instead, what we have is a clique of “bishops” that guard their information like a mother lion guards it’s cubs, and that accuses anyone that dares to question them of heresy and labels them with the scourge of “denier”

Um, no, the science is remarkably open. And (as far as I know) none of the scientists involved have called anyone a ‘denier’.

But this is how accusations work – if you’re going to make them (particularly if you’re going defame someone’s professional reputation) you need to make sure you damn well have sufficient clear evidence. Or actually, you should really have proof. Otherwise you lose any credibility (if you had any).

Obviously there is frustration expressed when professionals see other professionals stating things that are contrary to the evidence, but that’s perfectly understandable and occurs in every profession. Any reasonable person would realise that.

A circle jerk of AGW friendly retards, getting together to pretend to do a fair and objective analysis of whether the facts that the ClimateGate e-mail hack exposed showed they were doing anything but science, decided that there wasn’t really a scandal, despite the obvious and blatant lack of scientific rigor of any kind clearly exposed by the hacked e-mails which proved the data was suspect at best, and likely falsified and cherry picked, that the and models used were rigged, and that the review process was anything but a circle jerk of its own.

That you would think that all the enquiries were all whitewashes is not surprising in the least, and just further adds to the requirement that this is reliant on the world’s largest conspiracy and fraud. Which is simply implausible on its face.

You’re also starting to repeat your accusations already, yet you have yet to provide any proof.

Opening up everything for the scientists to look at and to reproduce? Fuck no. None of that!